 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Jennie Adamson
editJennie Adamson was not his wife, but the wife of his son William Murdoch Adamson, BOTH of whom were Labour MPs. I have corrected the reference in the Personal life section but hesitate to remove the citation, which does not make clear which William it refers to.Cloptonson (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- His son was not William Murdoch Adamson, the labour MP. William Murdoch Adamson was born in 1881 in Kilmarnock to a different William Adamson, who lived in Kilmarnock his whole life and died in 1911. The two men are not related to each other. I have images of all the relevant birth notices, marriage notices, death notices, and gravestones. I have tried to make this edit, but it was reversed as "non-constructive." Skinnylittletom (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize if it seems I inappropriately labeled your edit as “unconstructive” - it was simply the easiest way to revert the edit as I was patrolling recent changes. I assumed you were editing in good faith, but I didn’t take the time to make that clear when I reverted you (and I hope I’m making that clear now). In order to keep this change, you must appropriately cite the sources you are referring to in the article, and they must be appropriate sources. WP:verifiability may be a good place to look so you can see what I’m talking about. If you’re having trouble, you can also reach out on various notice boards where more experienced editors can help. Woerich (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Great--thanks for all your help. Final question: am I not able to delete the incorrect sentence about his children because it is poorly sourced? The current source listed for that information contains nothing about his children, which is the issue at play. As such, it's irrelevant. There's no reliable source to back this error up, so WP:verifiability recommends material like this is removed. I may not be able to link the birth register directly as a source (because it's behind a paywall), but I see no reason to leave incorrect information up there if there is no way to verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylittletom (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Skinnylittletom: I believe that your rationale for deleting the information you’re referring to is valid so I won’t revert you if you do delete it; however, if/when you do, please make that clear in your edit summary and refer to the talk page discussion. That way, your intentions will be clear to other editors patrolling recent changes. I also notice that an invitation to the “Teahouse” has been added to your talk page by a bot. If you’re unsure or need help or clarification on anything else, asking at the teahouse would put you in contact with more experienced editors (and perhaps more helpful than I have been!) Woerich (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Great--thanks for all your help. Final question: am I not able to delete the incorrect sentence about his children because it is poorly sourced? The current source listed for that information contains nothing about his children, which is the issue at play. As such, it's irrelevant. There's no reliable source to back this error up, so WP:verifiability recommends material like this is removed. I may not be able to link the birth register directly as a source (because it's behind a paywall), but I see no reason to leave incorrect information up there if there is no way to verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylittletom (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I apologize if it seems I inappropriately labeled your edit as “unconstructive” - it was simply the easiest way to revert the edit as I was patrolling recent changes. I assumed you were editing in good faith, but I didn’t take the time to make that clear when I reverted you (and I hope I’m making that clear now). In order to keep this change, you must appropriately cite the sources you are referring to in the article, and they must be appropriate sources. WP:verifiability may be a good place to look so you can see what I’m talking about. If you’re having trouble, you can also reach out on various notice boards where more experienced editors can help. Woerich (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Adamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214174724/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUadamsonW.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUadamsonW.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)